Sotomayor's history lesson to fellow justices a must-read

By O. Ricardo Pimentel :
May 2, 2014
: Updated: May 2, 2014 1:35pm

What she did not say: That Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's colleagues chose to prop up majority privileges.

More Information

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf

SAN ANTONIO — Here's the lesson that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered — but shouldn't have had to — in her dissent on the court's 6-2 ruling that guts affirmative action in Michigan higher education.

If minority groups gain access to the political process, folks will change the rules to restack the deck against them. Also, we are not a post-racial America and cries of reverse discrimination serve as cover to keep it that way.

This theme is clear to any schoolboy in any casual reading of this country's — and this state's — sordid history on race and ethnicity. Heck, forget history; it's evident in any reading of recent headlines.

Inequality is imposed, resisted, changed and then adaptation occurs that includes end-runs to preserve the discrimination. Repeat.

So, what's it say when one Supreme Court justice finds it necessary to school certain other justices on these incontrovertible recurrences in U.S. history?

It says she is frustrated with their ignorance.

Chief Justice John Roberts gets the implicit question, though. Is it willful ignorance? Hence his complaint that she was pretty much impugning his and other justices' motives.

No, just laying bare the effect and exploring historical antecedents. Their opinion will prop up majority privilege while kneecapping minorities. A rich tradition preserved.

Equal protection is not just about attacking invidious discrimination; it also includes not rigging the political system to disadvantage minorities.

It's called the “political process principle,” long established as part of the Fourteenth Amendment. And ignored, along with precedent, by the court plurality in this case.

So, folks in Michigan can elect or otherwise lobby university regents and trustees to preserve legacy admissions or other advantages. But, Michigan minorities and others have no chance getting these officials to include racial preferences to achieve a state interest of diversity in education and society.

Sotomayor pulled no punches.

Michigan's law “paves the way for the majority to do what it has done time and again through our Nation's history: afford the minority the opportunity to participate, yet manipulate the ground rules so as to ensure the minority's defeat.”

Sound familiar, Texas?

Redistricting? The right to vote is guaranteed, dagnabit, so let's craft districts that cheat minorities of representation of their choosing. And then enact a voter ID law that ensures fewer minorities vote as a practical matter, accomplished also with onerous rules on voter registration drives.

The latest effort to change the rules on minorities involves a lawsuit that would have Texas craft state Senate districts to consider equal numbers of eligible voters. This will disperse Latino voters out of districts that favor electing people who look like them and bring in white voters, all diluting Latino clout.

Sotomayor's dissent should be required reading in high school civics classes in Texas. It takes an unflinching look at our old acquaintance, reverse discrimination — allegedly inflicted on a group that enjoys every advantage and seeks to make that advantage permanent.

Yes, her fellow justices were, as Sotomayor insisted, trying to “wish away” racial inequality. More than that, they were honoring our tradition of building walls and calling them bridges.